Jump to content

Encyclopedia talk:Main Page

From Niidae Wiki
Revision as of 06:25, 22 September 2006 by imported>Rogerhc (→Unlock the page)

Greetings all! I think we need to make the Main page more immediately visually accessible - in other words, what Wikiversity is and what you can do there. I'm not such a whizz at Mediawiki design, so I'd appreciate any help in making a better page layout. I can then help with adding and creating links.. Cormaggio 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Unlock the Main Page please. Alternatively, please give me admin power so that I can edit it. Thanks. --Rogerhc 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? The main page is open for editing by all users, but the pieces are templated in from other locations.--Rayc 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I am satisfied to edit the relevant template. I'd like to move some pages so that their titles follow the "lowercase second and susequent words, except proper nouns" naming convention. --Rogerhc 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

The other languages link to de: links to de:Wikipedia. Is there a way to fix this? --Fang Aili 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's being worked on. It depends on Brion's schedule since this requires a direct change in the database. -- sebmol ? 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Is it really necessary to protect the main page in its first few days of existence? --Fang Aili talk 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just undid it, but it should probably be redone tonight whenever the last admin goes to bed. Right now there are plenty around to take care of any vandalism that may happen. -- sebmol ? 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Fang Aili talk 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Main Page/Design could be used for edits. This idea is discussed in Page organization subsection below. Doug 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Spaces

Should a "School of X" be in the Wikiversity namespace (e.g. Wikiversity:School of Engineering) or should it be called School of Engineering on its own? Or simply Engineering? --Fang Aili talk 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Can you come to the chat? We're all here talking if you want to join us. -- sebmol ? 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't right now, sorry. --Fang Aili talk 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Page organization

I re-organized the layout of the main page. Done now.

To do (and "done" by various editors):

  • edit the browse box (indent text -- remove rule line?)
  • Done - changed "open-content" to "free-content". decide on whether to use "free-content" or "open-content" in several places on page
  • Done - revise the links section (into 2 columns?).
  • Done - "department" changed to "subject". while "department" is used on wikibooks in the same manner as on main page, is this the correct term? (department usually means something more specific like physics or anthropology) would "study areas" be better?

Doug 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. In the "Help develop Wikiversity!" box, an invitation could be made to edit the main page as in:

A "stable" version of this page could be uploaded regularly. Or, along lines (less ponderously so) of the en.Wikipedia main page revision this Spring, perhaps revisions could be consensed/voted on by admins and/or all users. Doug 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It is after all the first page people see so it should always be in a presentable condition. I've moved the design page to Wikiversity:Main Page/Design since it doesn't really belong into the main namespace. -- sebmol ? 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Bad idea. It hampers non administrative editors. Trash or vandalism on the main page will not damage a learning institution more than letting an initial unofficial clique get in the habit off controlling site activities. Consider a brick in mortar. When someone spray paints or taggs the administrative centers walls or a Department Head's car is all work and study at the institution immediately suspended and control handed over to the janitors or one Dept Head? It is theoretically possible to define a human expert in encyclopedias, dictionaries, or publishing formats and procedures. It is self evidently impossible to find or create an expert in all fields of human learning. Mirwin 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The intent of the design page is to include everyone's input. A process for somehow regularly loading revisions doesn't exclude any input. The design page is a good idea for when it becomes necessary to protect the main page because of increasing traffic, just is done on Wikipedia now. This is a probability. I also feel it is a good idea to implement a design page for all edits soon because it allows people with page layout experience to clean up gently the page layout impact of substantial content edits (which often can mess up the graphical aspects of page layout) before going to the main page (and not even having the final say -- just a clean up that can be revised until page reaches a lull/stability for a day or two) -- without subtracting content or removing emphasis. Perhaps an example of this in practice for a limited time frame would demonstrate the benefits -- then the community could choose. Such a process would be a boon to the community and project - by keeping the design page attractive and user friendly. If people want to play with alternate page layouts, that is great and can be done better done on alternate design subpages where compromises and choices can be worked out. The wiki free form process on the main design page would be there -- supplemented by some planning subpages for more focused discussion of examples. Doug 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with calling one of the schools "Professions". Professions can be found in all the other schools!! Also, I feel that Education should be one of the major Schools.--Ningbojoe 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing about "professions" when I was editing some of content of that subsection. A more appropriate label for that category will surely pop up sometime. :) Education could be one of the Schools. So could others. I expect the list may grow longer... :) Doug 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the aim of Wikiversity?

I don't understand, what is the difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks? Under meta:Wikiversity/Modified project proposal I learn, that it is about learning about a topic (Wikiversity) and reading about a topic (Wikibooks). But this "difference" seems a bit made-up to me. Wikibooks at the moment features the book wikibooks:Movie Making Manual. A how-to on movie making. What would be the difference to a course "film making" or "movie making" on Wikiversity? Okay, I see that a Wikiversity maybe would have a slightly other focus on some aspects, but is it useful to create two independant projects? I can't think, that this was not a topic already before, so please point me to the discussion (but if it is a typical endless wiki discussion, I would be happy if you could give an outline of the main arguments, that were crucial to the decide). --84.143.6.71 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just take some time here and relax for a moment. Yes, this was a major criticism to the proposal, although if you look at b:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Wikiversity you will see at least some of the justifications to delete Wikiversity in the first place, and also see some replies and rebuttals at meta:Wikiversity/Vote/en. This is certainly an issue that has been rehashed multiple times and deserves FAQ level answers. --Robert Horning 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Compare What is Wikibooks to Wikiversity project proposal. The content of Wikibooks is textbooks. The content of Wikiversity does not include textbooks. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is of course possible to fork an FDL book and add features that the Wikibook's project has decided it will not allow authors to use. For example, extensive links within text materials. They have decided they wish to be closer to formal textbooks easy to make print ready than online sets of notes. Extensive problem sets or quizzes. In line clickable animation or audio or analysis programs or other electronic extenstions available to a properly equipped computer via data on same CD or the internet. An example would be an enginneering text with clickable access to stress/thermal analysis finite element packages or other numerical methods. Mirwin 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


MIT has a program known as OCW(Open Course Ware) which provides course materials online for nearly all of the courses currently offered at MIT and for a select few courses even includes video lectures. I was wondering if anyone was aware of whether or not it would be possible to integrate these already available resources into the Wikiversity project? I feel that it would be a waste of time, that could be better spent on improving and supplementing these resources, to recreate them. Mos87

It is unfortunate but MIT's OCW program is under a special MIT license that is incompatible with the GNU FDL we are using. MIT is giving away the free use of the material via the Internet. It is not allowing others to download and modify the materials as they see fit. We can however use the materials at MIT for research and then include any distilled understanding of the subject gained here at Wikiverisity as long as the user is careful to use his own wording, examples, creativity to express the understanding gained at MIT's web site. Mirwin 06:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why cannot Wikiversity give a certificate or start a certificate or diploma program on its own? The students can view the content, read it, download books, after that the exams should be conducted. That is what I feel Rich_richie

Main page mission statement

Create and host open-content, multimedia learning materials and resources, for all age groups in all languages

Isn't this the mission statement for Wikibooks? Is there a link to the resolution from the board? - Amgine 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here: Wikimedia Foundation approval of the project
The statement you quote reflects part of the mission of Wikiversity. Another major part of the mission is to create learning communities. As I understand it, Wikiversity projects can be partly based on Wikibooks in the same way that Wikibooks are sometimes partly based on Wikipedia articles. However, Wikiversity can be much more than a collection of curricula; it can be a network of learning communities, a creative university/multiversity without walls. --Doug 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No. The effective mission of the Wikibooks project is to create textbooks. A lot of other material people have typed in is routinely archived and deleted or perhaps merely deleted. I am curious Amgine. Do you intend to participate here at Wikiversity or do you view yourself as an interested Wikimedia Foundation member playing hall monitor to make sure we conform strictly to the letter of the approved proposal? Are you a regular at Wikibooks concerned that we may host ebooks and other online materials that Wikibooks declines to host as outside their narror definition of what someone may use as a textbook or learning reference manual? Mirwin 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New banner graphic

There are 4 white guys (yes?) in the banner at the top of the main page: [1]. That won't do. Please fix. --Doug 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And one of them is holding a big stick and pointing his finger :-) Thanks for raising this, Doug. Cormaggio 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's a quill, rather than a stick - but I still advocate a better image for the main page - something more along the lines of "learning together". Cormaggio 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a simple stylized image of a galaxy would work -- this being in part a metaphor for many bright lights shining and living together and also a metaphor for exploring the universe? Until a banner more representative and less male and euro-centric (which only fits maybe 10% of the global population) is created, is a banner needed? Is one needed at all? Also, I question the use of a graduation hat as the WV logo if the statement of what WV is not includes not granting degrees. Perhaps a galaxy could be a logo option for WV. Doug 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, the logo is wrong - I just put something there as a placeholder (to replace Wikipedia's logo, which was there originally), with the full intention of opening a logo contest to decide our real identity :-). There have already been a few suggestions - so maybe we should get going on it soon - I know my girlfriend is keen to have a go. As for the banner image, no, we don't need one - though images are useful - I'll pooch around for something better.. Cormaggio 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yah, some graphic or photo would be nice up top. What you have now is better. It might be hard to find a banner that makes everyone happy by various criteria. A pluralistic option: Perhaps we could rotate (even automate the rotation) of the top graphic amongst a dozen or two dozen photos (or more) of people from different cultures in schooling/learning/research contexts -- one could have a blurb about the inclusive nature of wikiversity and reaching out to many contexts -- off and online. A logo contest soon sounds good. Doug 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. How do we know they are "white"? My impression was Spanish from about the 1600s. Conquistadors learning how to get to the "New World". By all means pick something politically correct for China and North Korea. Maybe a CD or IC under the arm of a scholar escaping from Alexandria burning? Maybe the scholar could be plugging a light fiber into the internet? Mirwin 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone knows the identities of the persons in the orginal picture but I couldn't be sure -- that is why I wrote "yes?" with a question mark above. We can't be sure they are all guys either -- another reason I wrote "yes?". But, something that looks like it could be 4 white people who happen to be all guys (yes? no?) sends the wrong message. I hope we have a community process to develop and pick a graphic. Doug 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to say that this is something that needs to be fixed again, as the current image is something that is for a classroom in South Africa and it doesn't make it all that clear. Of course, we could do a "rotating" image that would have something from different regions of the world that would rotate in and out depending on the day of the week. That might show a little more diversity anyway. Kinda like the "pic of the day" images. --Robert Horning 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this as early ranging fire lacking proven ballistic analog computers. A few more attempts and we should start tweaking newcomer's interests .... say that could me in that picture! Mirwin 06:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Move

Uh, why move this page? It's the *Main Page* :-) Cormaggio 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to keep the purposes of the namespaces clear. If the main namespace is meant for learning and research materials, Main Page doesn't really fit into it. -- sebmol ? 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is only by historical tradition that wiki main pages are in the main namespace. The idea of having an introductory main page came before the idea of having a project namespace to hold the meta-pages about the project. I support having the main page be in a "meta namespace" such as the wikiversity namespace. Technically, I wonder if the main page should be thought of as a portal. --JWSchmidt 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
By having Main Page as a redirect, we are automatically making practically everyone entering the project coming into a redirect. I just don't think that's good design. Yes, the main page is many things - a portal, a meta page - but, most importantly, it is an introduction to the project. Why immediately scupper the design of the page by keeping to a strict plan of what a particular namespace is? *No* other project has a redirect from Main Page - and I don't think it's purely an historical thing either. Cormaggio 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What redirect? It's fixed. ;-) -- sebmol ? 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean, that you see underneath the page title: "Redirected from Main Page" - I just don't think it looks good. Cormaggio 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't see that anymore. Try entering just the URL or click on the image on the left. It should go straight to Wikiversity:Main Page without redirect. -- sebmol ? 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it is :-) Cormaggio 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So it's ok? -- sebmol ? 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That redirect sign is back, by the way - not sure if it's something to do with the vandalism.. Cormaggio 07:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the "redirect sign" is seen if you came from Main Page to Wikiversity:Main Page. --JWSchmidt 09:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by the redirect sign is simply the words "redirected from Main Page", which I get when I type http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Main_Page into a browser (or follow that link, which I've bookmarked). I wonder how it is for people coming in on a link from any of our sister projects..? Cormaggio 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If they come through http://en.wikiversity.org/ they won't see a Redirect. If on a sister project the link is made like this: [[v:]], they will also not see the redirect. I would suggest you adjust your browser so that it links to http://en.wikiversity.org/ with nothing after the slash. -- sebmol ? 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Back to dissertation-land for me :-) Cormaggio 09:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

no www.wikiversity.org yet

FYI: There's no http://www.wikiversity.org yet... Katpatuka11:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Brion or other technical developers will need to fix this, the page has been a domain name placeholder for at least a year so it predates our database wiki. He may be waiting for a preliminary logo. I suggest we request an immediate fix using the mortar board logo in the center with various languages around it as in the www.wikipedia.org portal. It seems good enough while we wait for logo designers to show and have a competition. Mirwin 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?

I don't know about any body else, but the main page seems to be gone.

never mind, it's back

Vandalism

Due to a wayward idiot, this page (the main page, not the talk page) is now being semi-protected against edits by anonymous users. I would imagine after a couple of weeks when this pages gets settled down that there will be no major reason to continue to edit this page, and it will turn to sysop-only edit protection.

If there are problems that you experience with editing the main page, please drop a line here and let us know what you want to see changed. --Robert Horning 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


ERROR on front page

I registered for an account but cannot edit the front page. There is an error in the link to subscribe to the wikiversity mailing list. The URL should be: http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

p.s. I created the first draft of the Wikiversity front page like two years ago. I had to quit working on it while I finished my phd, but I'm glad this project finally got approved and I hope to contribute to it. DouglasHolton 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for the hint. I'm looking forward to your contributions. -- sebmol ? 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you change the link to DE from Deutsch to Deutsch?

I think the second way looks better.

-- MichaelFrey 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all of the links from external to internal links. I agree, they look better that way. I think I messed up the Japanese link, so if anybody knows where in ja.wikibooks the Japanese Wikiversity pages are, it would be appreciated. --Robert Horning 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-) -- MichaelFrey 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages without content

...include Esperanto, Netherlands, and Japanese. Should they be taken off the main page? I don't see any use for them over any other languages that have no content. 219.255.192.201 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Committee

Do we have a welcoming committee here yet? If not, how should one be started? (Or, alternately, would it be appropriate to start one?) --Qwerty 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please start welcoming committee. There is this: {{Template:Welcome}} --JWSchmidt 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is up with this skin?

What's up with the rounded edges of this skin? It totally does not fit in with any of the other English Wikimedia projects. It looks plain ridiculous, especially since the rounded edges are not anti-aliased. I believe that it should be changed back to normal. 85.147.58.212 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project determines its look separately. If you do not like the rounded edges, you are free to register and adjust your Monobook.css. -- sebmol ? 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so you're the admin who made the change, I see. So instead of actually taking the time to discuss this change with me, you simply say "shut up and make your own exclusive override if you want to". This is terrible! You just made this change because you like it, and you don't seem to care about the fact that square edges have become the standard across almost all Wikimedia projects. What is your reason to do this? What do rounded corners add, besides your personal opinion of design? I am a graphic designer and I cannot fathom what rounded corners could possibly add. All they do is show how utterly clueless browsers are at rendering rounded corners. It's all jaggy and aliased, and there are even a few "gaps" in there. Anyway, if you really like this change, then it's okay to add it as you're legally entitled to do so (as admin) but please at least have the decency to discuss it rather than just telling people to go make their own override. 85.147.58.212 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do have the decency to discuss it. But if you're already making the point that it looks "plain ridiculous", what's the point of dicussion? You have not made any contributions to this project yet you feel the need to call something that meets the consensus of the project ridiculous. If you expect AGF, you have to start by asking, not judging. -- sebmol ? 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Rounded corners do exist in Wikimedia projects, Wikiversity is certainly not the only one. It's also been around for a few days without anybody complaining. Rather the opposite. -- sebmol ? 21:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I just gave you plenty of reasons if you'll read my previous message.
  1. Jaggy edges
  2. Bad browser support
  3. Not the standard (consistency is important for Mediawiki as a whole)
  4. Not the way the Monobook skin was meant to look
I have not contributed to this project yet (I did vote for it to be started, though) but I believe that there is no problem with me pointing out what I believe to be a problem of this site. In a way, that is contributing as well. Also, you tell me one single other English Wikimedia project that also has rounded edges. There are none. This was my point. I realize there are non-English Wikimedia projects that do. I also cannot see how this decision can prevail in the long run, seen as how the other Wikimedia projects are much larger than this one, and any attempt to add rounded corners there would immediately be rejected via the Snowball clause. 85.147.58.212 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
you are right, they are ugly. Still, that's not the end of the world, or even this project. If this is going to fly, there will be more than enough people to talk it over anyway, at length (and as soon as there are, the round corners will go out the window of course), and if it isn't, nobody will care about it anyway. 83.78.187.95 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what these rounded corners are - I've never seen any difference between all other WMF projects. What skin are you talking about? But please, whoever you are, don't get discouraged from discussing changes - for general issues, please bring them up on the Wikiversity:Colloquium. Thanks. Cormaggio 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cormaggio, view the wiki in a Mozilla-based browser like Firefox. You'll see that the global CSS has been edited to force tab and box corners to be rounded, among other things. robchurch | talk 12:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the rounded corners

You can have the default square ones instead by adding the following lines to your monobook.css: 

#p-cactions ul li, #p-cactions ul li a { -moz-border-radius-topleft:0em;  -moz-border-radius-topright:0em; }
#content { -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:0em; } 
.pBody { -moz-border-radius-topright:0em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:0em; }

– Gurch 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome page

I've just created Wikiversity:Welcome, newcomers and i suggest it be linked to in the Main Page title, just as the other projects are. Can an admin please do this? - Trevor MacInnis 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --JWSchmidt 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lose the "Beta" from the logo. Wiki-based projects are by definition never finished, so "beta" labels are unnecessary. (We might as well label all the projects "beta" if they were). Also, I'm sure there must be a better colour than bright blue to use for the name. Black, or Wikimedia grey, perhaps? – Gurch 10:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The board decided, that this project is in beta mode for 6 months so we can't really just get rid of it. The logo is indeed not the best one I've ever seen; we're planning on having a logo competition soon however. -- sebmol ? 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please organise this logo contest? Meta m:Logo is probably the best place. Thanks. (FWIW, I agree that the current logo is bad - for more reasons than just the colours.) Oh, and yes, the "beta" should be there for the beginning, as it was for Wikinews in its beta phase. Also agreed that the same could still be done for Wikipedia ;-) Cormaggio 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the logo (with a bit of help) - though this should not stop us from making a new one. Please continue... Cormaggio 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Those colours are definitely better – thanks Cormaggio. A logo design discussion is now underway at m:Wikiversity/logo, submit any ideas there – Gurch 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New page layout?

This looks better: User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage, hit it on a random page--134.48.245.4 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I think some of the elements of this revised page are interesting but the bold orange colors and rounded graphics don't appeal to my eye. Reswik 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changes to more muted colors, is that any better? - Trevor MacInnis 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This looks better. I like some of the ways you have rearranged things. Other things probably could be adjusted. Some suggestions -->

Suggestions for your draft page:

  • Move the sister projects back down to horizontal bar at bottom.
  • Replace the round corners with square ones
  • Drop the entire services section and just have a link -- too much content
  • Put Other areas above Library and rename Other areas to something like "Communications and Community"
  • Try a version without the little icons in the middle column. not sure abou those.

This is good work. I wonder what others think. Thanks, Reswik 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I was thinking today that it would be interesting to turn the main page text blocks into templates. Then we might be able to design different skins, fitting in the templates (with a few template alternates perhaps) as needed. Then, the skins can be options for viewing the current template content. What do you think? Heck, folks could design their own skins and portals -- many of them. We could vote on what skin to be default at any one time. Reswik 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've implemented your comments, and the text block skin is basically what I'm doing with the page (see:Template:TrevorMainPageBox). - Trevor MacInnis 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not like it at first. It was a bit garish to my eye and I could not easily find stuff I was previously using. I noticed that after I systematically located the old links I was depending on knowing where they were then the whole thing settled in nicely. The old one looks drab now! lol Nice work! Mirwin 06:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very nice design. Let's implement the text block templates so we can have option to use more than one skin -- if no one objects -- guess we can go back if they do. With more tweaking and polish, I think the very plain current design and your colorful and creative design can both improve further. However, I think we could upload your design now without a vote, if no one objects. I think I'll mention that as a 24 hour thing for feedback. OK? Reswik 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I think the other language versions of Wikiversity were left out of your design (unless I missed them). But, those are easy enough to add. I'm doing so at bottom of your design page. Below, I made a new post to call for approval to upload your design soon. Reswik 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A non-table Layout: click here

Move main page content to subpages?

I think there is too much information on the front page: 4 screen fulls.

I reorganized some of the content on the main page. We could reduce content by putting the "Services" section (which is too long for front page) and moving the "Background and Proposals" section to separate pages. Then, we can put links on the front page to those. This would get down to about 3 screen fulls. Reswik 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the edits suggested here and created the 2 new subpages. I think this improves the front page. With editing work, I think the presentation of the information on the subpages will much improve. Reswik 03:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the morphing and move of the "Background and Proposals" main page sub-section into a new Wikiversity:History of Wikiversity page (linked on main page) has some potential for generating insight and involvement. It only needs a good intro and a story line. Reswik 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto?

Are we going to create an equivalent of the catchy-but-cheesy-yet-perhaps-useful slogan that they have in Wikipedia? Yes, I am talking about a “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” kind of thing. An obvious advantage of something like that is to remove some of the pressure already placed on defying the mission of wikiversity. Maybe a combination of a good graphic logo, a banner along the lines of “the free encyclopedia”, and a promotional slogan just like “that anyone can edit” could help in clarifying what this thing is all about. After all, many universities out there have silly Latin mottos and they even put them on t-shirts. Perhaps we should include banner proposals in the logo contest. What do you think?Aldenis 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Refine Wikiversity mission <--> Develop slogan/motto. We are working on the first step of this here -- the idea is first to refine our mission statement, from which and on the basis of which then we will all together try various slogans/mottos: Wikiversity: Wikiversity mission. But, perhaps this is to complex. Refining might be something we can do in tandem (hence the double arrow above <-->) -- perhaps by writing up a bunch of very short mission statements and then both translating those into slogans and refining mission through insights. Whatever works! Feel free to dive in there to try that... I was thinking of inviting people to lob short missions/slogans onto that page. Reswik 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


A suggestion for Wikiversity motto "Opening minds through open learning". Mos87

Howabout: "Reasonably free thinking, freely pursued." or "Free thinkers learn free." or "Pursue free thinking freely." or we could request Wikibooks find a new and use theirs: "Learn free, think free." or to further confuse the ongoing "but what is Wikiversity exactly" issue we could go with: "Think freely, but learn free." or howabout: "Free wiki mentors, learn freely." Mirwin 07:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the revise the mission page is not working so far -- so perhaps we need a motto contest page, as suggested in the post below. Reswik 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto and slogan contest

Please list your suggestions for mottos and slogans here: Motto and slogan contest.

The short motto will go with our logo (yet to be chosen) for listing on wikimedia sister projects. The slogan or descriptive phrase will go on the top of our main page with "Welcome to Wikiversity."

A simple contest process is suggested:

  • list as many mottos and slogans as you wish
  • add *one* vote for one motto and one slogan
  • feel free to change vote and add mottos at any time.
  • winners are the motto and the slogan with strong majority of votes. (there may need to be a run off if a strong majority is not achieved).
  • voting ends in 15 days: 5:00 pm GMT September 7, 2006.

We may use ideas from the motto and slogan contest to help refine the Wikiversity mission. Feel free to post mission statement revisions there too. --Reswik 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page

Can we protect the image that is on the main page as well? --HappyCamper 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New page design

Trevor has done extensive work to create a very nice design for the main page, moved to new page: Wikiversity:Main_Page/Design (old page User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage) . It could still be tweaked but it is better than what we have. (See original discussions above in "new page format") Shall we take a quick head count on using the new design -- 24 to 48 hours? Enough time for sense of no objections? Reswik 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Original version

Do you support or oppose using this design on the front page: Wikiversity:Main Page/Design (new location)?

  • Template:Pro -- tweaking needed; can go up; design 2 has more code cleanup done so prefer that Reswik 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro - Sure. Looks great, why not? This is a new place, should be able to experiment with a few things. --HappyCamper 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro I would prefer larger fonts across the board. Scrolling is better than squinting. However, it does provide a crisp image of professional design and will no doubt continue to evolve. Mirwin 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro I like it; very unique, but also clean and functional. There are some minor usability issues, but I'm sure they could easily be resolved. --Aepex 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Contra. I support Trevor's efforts, but this design isn't ready for implementation. (Please see User talk:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage for some of my objections.) It has the potential to evolve into something better, but it would be a mistake to rush it onto the main page before it's ready. (I'm not saying that it can't be tweaked after it goes live, but it should be further along than this.) —David Levy 07:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's definitely better than the current Main Page, but I think it could do with some tweaking. I don't like that overlapping globe thing, for a start – Gurch 12:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro - Great work! Think marketing guys, a great design like his can enhance user experience thus attracting more users and make people more willing to contribute. Rayshan 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Like Gurch, I don't like the overlapping globe, nor the overlapping boxes. I feel like there are too many boxes, and this moves away from my vision of Wikiversity, which in my minds aims at being user-friendly and intuitive. Well done for your work however. guillom 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro - Wikiversity is still too small to have something like the wikipedia main page redesign. If you don't like it, work up your own design. I think we all can agree this is better the the present one.--Rayc 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not all of us agree that it's better. The issue of aesthetics is subjective (and I'm clearly outnumbered on that front), but the time/date stamp feature is sometimes broken (due to caching), and I guarantee that the text is more difficult for people with visual impairments to read. (This is an area in which I have some degree of expertise.) Accessibility is of the utmost importance, and I'd like to think that it would be considered before any new design is rushed into use (even if it looks good to most people). The current design isn't flashy, but it's quite functional. Can we please not take a step back in this regard? The problems that I've cited can be addressed (and I truly see a great deal of potential for a nice design that sacrifices no usability), if only we can be slightly patient. —David Levy 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that usability is important. I think a few days of review is a good thing for a really new design, even in a good project. Trevor has tweaked the design. See below. Reswik 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro - I know I just joined, but I must say that from seeing the link to the design from the home page, I must say that it is quite nice for this site. It would really look well as it would show our own Wikiversity creativity, and not just use the standard setup.--Hd.G 06:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro - better than current one. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro Awesome job! I love the colors and the concept! -Yorktown1776 16:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Modified version

Please post opinions regarding Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2. Do you support or oppose its adoption, and how does it compare to the original version?

  • Note: I'm aware of a minor display bug in Internet Explorer 6. (The image is off-center and lacks a right-hand border.) Please assume that this issue (which does not exist in Firefox or Opera) will be corrected when the code is refined. —David Levy 09:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As they are now, I like Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2 slightly better than Wikiversity:Main Page/Design- even though "Design 2" is quite plain, it 'gels' nicely - looks seemless. If I had a (very minor) tweak, it would be to centre the Browse box text under the "Welcome to Wikiversity" - as well as changing the motto/byline (but that's being worked on elsewhere). Good work everyone :-) Cormaggio 10:43, 26 August 2006
  • Template:Pro -- On a discussion string on his talk page, David points out that he cleaned up template formats and CSS code in working on Design 2. For this reason, I think we should post Design 2. Once the usability issues are addressed in Design 2, I think it can be posted. I prefer a few design aspects of both versions. We can polish and negotiate design features over time. A few design issues: I think it is important to include a sizeable graphic or photo (which could have a link to a blurb about how that item relates to wikiversity) near the top in whatever design evolves. I would like to see more white space in the main top title box. I prefer the mix of blue/tan in heading bars in Design 1. I like a "menu" line centered under the main title box but a top right box menu can work too. Reswik 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Contra - I'm sorry guys but I have to say that the 1st design is better and here's why: The use of icons helps to make the content graphically stand out. Graphics could generally be comprehended faster than words alone. (Although I don't think all the icons correctly represent the content, such as the broom). As far as color and layout goes, 1st design nicely group sub-content together in "boxes", but it may sometimes look a little "too much". 2nd design looks a lot cleaner, but I recommend something between main content and "Wiki in other languages" so everything don't blend together with the background. Also how about making "Wiki in other languages" and "Sister projects" centered? 66.177.92.226 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for points. I agree that some of design elements of Design 1 are more desirable (as I mention just above). But, we need to go with Design 2 code clean up or recreate that in Design 1. Perhaps it is easier to adjust graphic elements and reintroduce icons in design 2. Not sure. Reswik 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In modifying the design, I drew upon the comments expressed here and those expressed by literally hundreds of users during the English Wikipedia's main page redesign process. Over there, the use of icons (including these exact images) was rejected by a clear majority of respondents (many of whom noted that they created an "unprofessional" or "childish" appearance). As you noted, there is no strong connection between these images and the content that they accompany. They serve purely as decoration, not as navigational aids.
The non-stylized Wikiversity in other languages and Wikiversity's sister projects sections (present in both versions) reflect an overwhelming consensus that emerged during the aforementioned English Wikipedia discussion. The idea is to visually differentiate between the dynamic and static content.
Indeed, one of my goals was to make the design cleaner and easier to read (which also entailed the use of larger text), and I believe that I've succeeded. —David Levy 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Design2, but didn't notice a link to the tour. Would be nice if one were added, or made starker if it's there. Dev920 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added the link.  :) —David Levy 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou. :D Dev920 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro: looks better than both the current one and option 1, and is more organized than option one.--Hd.G 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro: It looks good to me. Thanks for larger text. Mirwin 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Pro: i agree that design version 2 is clearer and more to the point (although i do like the wikitrek blurb in design 1) --Smithgrrl 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Contra: The overlap between the blue and orange where the "About • Browse..." links are is bothering the hell out of me, probably because I'm a web designer. I would support if that were changed.--digital_me 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Were you thinking that we would have two separate columns, one blue and one orange (tan)? Or, were you thinking something like what is now on Design 2 -- a blue bar across the top. Reswik 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose either change (and I've reverted).
As I noted on your talk page, the logic behind my configuration is that readers tend to notice solid elements of the same color that they're already looking at. If the left side of the page is predominantly blue and the right side is predominantly tan, they'll be more likely to concentrate on one and ignore the other. By placing blue section headings below a tan header (and vice-versa), the users' eyes will naturally be drawn to both sides of the page.
One thing that became clear during the English Wikipedia's main page redesign process is that it usually isn't a good idea to rush to make major changes in response to a single criticism (especially when the status quo has generated generally positive comments). Nine times out of ten, you'll only end up upsetting more people than you please.  :) —David Levy 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The tan is drawing my eyes away from the main content, what we need is something to counterbalance it. Perhaps adding blue borders would help, but right now, the right side is too visually heavy.--digital_me 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you see what the page looked like with the all-blue header? The left side completely dominated. Then, with blue on the left and tan on the right, it looked like two isolated entities (with the left side still dominating because it's much wider).
To me, the page looks fairly balanced now. If anything, the left side still stands out slightly more (because of the aforementioned width). —David Levy 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the current design looks better than the variations I explored last night. However, after trying to simplify the top, I think the approach of the new design in general has yielded looks that are too "busy" and distracting up top. If anyone wishes to play with the design, perhaps further work will resolve that. (I am not going to work on the design until after this passes). After this new design (which is certainly an improvement) is approved, I'm going to start working on further revisions on sandbox pages, perhaps variants of this design (or other another similar one), that have the masthead only across the top with two columns underneath. Reswik 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pro: I love the second page design. It looks wonderful and easy to organize new information into. It's inviting. OneWomanArmy --Diana 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Summary of discussion (revised): This needs revisions for usability, then this can be posted. A strong majority would like to see this design posted (10 or 11 of 13, including 2 comments on Trevor's design talk page), and some say tweaking is needed first. Almost all would like to see the design tweaked somehow. In response to feedback, Trev has done extensive tweaking now, two rounds at least, including in response to above comments, to improve this. A few minor things remain to do. This is almost ready. ...
  • A longish discussion string from here moved to: Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design.
  • See section above for Design 2 comments. Please share your comments about design 2 above.

Feel free to adjust the design:

To do:
  • [Done] The right column text still needs work.
  • [Done--problem found--see comment below] Can someone check usability in JAWS or Window-Eyes.
  • Can someone check readability in the Safari browser at various screen resolutions?
Thanks, Reswik 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been attempting to adjust the design, but the style templates are making this very difficult for me. If Trevor (or someone else) could move most of the code into the page itself, it would be much easier to edit. I tried substituting some of the templates on a test page, but that broke much of the page. —David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[We figured out how to work with the templates.] Due to right column text size issues, I think the right hand Communication blurbs needs to be edited into shorter length at each bullet point. Reswik 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Problems found via JAWS with new design -- these need to be addressed. See discussion on Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design
  • Graphic/photo issue -- Should there be a photo or graphic in the top right area of the new design page? (The current top page photo is there and needs to be resized and/or centered if it stays.)
  • This is a comment that should be registered, but probably not acted on yet. The front page fails this accessibility checker - can we get a user familiar with accessibility issues to take a look at the new page and see if they can navigate through it? --HappyCamper 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Contrast is disappearing: Design 1 and 2 are converging in appearance (due to Trevor adopting some of David's revisions). Design 2 code is partly revised for usability issues and being revised further. Reswik 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to include the new stuff that was recently included on the orginal main page. The drafts are starting to become out of date.--Rayc 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strafing

If i understand right, the goal of this project is to teach a man all the things (positive ofc) possible. Look, and if I have some Defrag strafing (computer sport game) skills? Is it forbidden here to teach people such things? Thank you.

I've no idea of what that game is, but I don't see a problem in uploading material that teaches people about how to play computer games - we haven't set policies yet on delineating our content (such as exists, for example, on Wikibooks). Just a side thought, but I think it would be really interesting to see what computer games can teach us about the world - if that could be developed, it could be a fantastic resource. Cormaggio 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. I haven't played it for about a year, but i can ask world champion for it. Thanks!
Or, you oculd be a stunt coodinator for Wikiversity the Movie. Great gameplaying skills put to good use!--Rayc 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And hopefully we can teach women too! I really get tired of the sexist language. It's so embedded in education as well as everything else. I can't be silent about it. It DOES matter. Already I feel excluded. No, the goal of this project is to share, collect and strive to educate human beings.User:OneWomanArmy--Diana 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I feel terrible that you feel excluded. Of course it matters. I just didn't respond to this part of the sentence, because there were other things that the questioner (whoever he/she is) wanted to know about. But you're absolutely right to bring it up. Wikiversity is education for all. Cormaggio 14:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel it important to note, in a pure and strict sense of education, that Latin is a root of English. The use of what appear to be masculine pronouns are also neuter pronouns based on context. Man, as in mankind, should not be misunderstood to mean only male humans, but the idea of all of humankind is expressed in that single word as best as possible. We shold also note that language begins verbally and becomes a written language after, logically but not necessarily chronologically as they can happen simultaneously. Some contexts provided druing speach may not be as easily communicated through written word. In any case, I don't think colloquial habits should be maligned, as over time any individual who increases in education naturally revises their use of language to an extent. To immediately highlight errors or discourteousness in the way in which a question is asked in lieu of adressing the content of question seems to me to be agaisnt the intent of Wikiversity. I also feel at this point that in order to not be misunderstood, I need to qualify that this is not not meant to be a personal attack of any kind nor truly a correction of previous behavior, but to highlight that a certain tolerance of each other will make the education process itself go more smoothly. And I hope we can all see that education will help each of us to refine ourselves from our current sate. Talonhawk 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal Addition

I created a Fine Arts portal, and since the schools'll have (at the very least shells) functioning pages as soon as I get my 4 hours of sleep, I was wondering if someone with the access wouldn't mind putting the portal up amongst the other schools on the main page. +Bozaloshtsh 08:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

done - Trevor MacInnis 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. +Bozaloshtsh 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Favicon Suggestion

Your favicon is currenlty identical to wikipedia's... I keep links in my toolbar with only the icon, and I think having the hat would make more sense in any case. Just a random thought. ----68.222.136.209 12:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, and fully agreed that we'll have to change that icon. We're currently in the process of changing our logo, though - details of which here. Maybe we should wait until that's decided? Cormaggio 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation with Wikihowto

I would like to invite everyone to cooperate with Wikihowto. I think we nead a way to make Wikihowto an Wikimedia project. Andi think Wikiversity could, maybe not replace Wikihowto, but at least evolve hand in hand. I think the both Wikiversity and Wikihowto are made to evolve together, don't you think? Please think about it if you do and tell other people about this two projects. (moa3333) 80.236.113.58 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) hm... there is one of these (insert link to Wikihow)--24.208.123.129 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a link to Wikihowto at Educational Wikis. --JWSchmidt 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant sign up!

It wont show me the security code, and i only see the dreaded little red x. :( --24.208.123.129 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude

Account creation seems to be working now. --JWSchmidt 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

i still cant see the verification code.

There must be something wrong on your end, because other continue to be able to sign up, and I just checked and saw the codeword. I suggest trying to create an account from another computer, after that you'll be able to login from home as normal. - Trevor MacInnis 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Signups are working fine. I suggest you try accessing Wikipedia through a free web based proxy, as these may alter the image as it is passed on. --Draicone (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Vandal fighting unit

Similar to wikipedia:WP:CVU, I've established this page to co-ordinate vandal fighting efforts (although I doubt this is very important right now). I'm a developer for wikipedia:WP:MWT and I intend to alter it slightly to work with Wikiversity. Input would be appreciated. --Draicone (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WV:SHRINE before you consider starting a vandal fighting project here. -- sebmol ? 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand, and the goal of VFU is to identify vandalism, as once we reach a few thousands articles there will always be edits that go unnoticed. Any system established would include at least a couple of sysops and focus around recording vandalism attempts and reporting them to sysops (/custodians/admins/bureaucrats) so that appropriate action can be taken. --Draicone (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm but I also want to point out that vandalism and dealing with it is not supposed to be a big deal. People report it or notice it, it gets taken care of, we move on. By creating pages like the VFU, we're just creating yet another place for vandals to feel like they get any attention from us which presumably is exactly what we're trying to prevent. -- sebmol ? 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand. However, I've clarified VFU and I really just want to establish a system in place and educate users on how to deal with vandalism - currently, there's no way of knowing what to do with vandalism besides revert it unless another user tells you what to do. There's nothing saying, "Contact a sysop at [[here]]". Just reverting vandalism is good, but if vandals continue to compromise pages, people need to know what to do about it - in fact, they need to know what to do about it in the first place. I suppose a 'unit' is a bad idea, as it gives the impression of many vandal fighters actively reverting vandalism (which, unlike en:wp, is clearly not the situation). I simply felt that having a few users develop a page to educate the public on dealing with vandalism was useful. --Draicone (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3/4th

We have spent 3/4th of wikiversity's existance redesigning the main page. Could we just throw one of the designs up there and call it good? It can always be reverted.--Rayc | (Talk) 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We've got some content started, there's hundreds of pages listed at Special:Allpages. --Draicone (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If we are talking about a "design change" then the new main page should have the same content as the current main page....just with a new design. I'm reluctant to switch to either Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 1 or Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2 because they have content changes. It is not easy for me to follow the trail of of past discussions starting at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 1 that might explain the content changes. There was a request made at (Wikiversity:Request custodian action) that "Design 2" be used, but there are no discussions at all at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 2. If there are going to be content changes (new image, "where you can teach to learn and learn to teach", etc) then I would like to see a summary of the content changes and a description at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design 2 of how those changes were selected. --JWSchmidt 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The bulk of the new design discussions are described here: Wikiversity_talk:Main_Page#New_page_design, with links in that discussion to points elsewhere. The discussion includes various summaries as does the admin request page. JW, since you have objected to the new design in the past (on the Design 1 talk page) and as you are responsible for many of the recent new content changes/tweaks on the old front page design since the new design was developed (and hence you can best summarize those), I do not think you should serve as facilitator on this issue. Just my opinion, Reswik 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have only had a few comments and suggestions about the new main page design. I originally wondered if what looked like an overlap in rectangles in the upper right corner was a an error. I was told that it is a design feature. I requested that there be efforts made to make it easy to read any blue text placed on a blue background. I think it is reasonable that any page content changes existing in the new design be summarized and justified all in one place. There is a difference between making changes to the main page (the most observed page of the wiki) and making changes on a page that ranked 92nd in terms of page views during the last week of August and 246th so far during September. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Another summary: Of expressed views about posting the new design, there is a strong majority in favor of posting the new design. Usability issues seem to have been addressed. I do not wish to summarize this further or put work into reconciling the old main page and new main page. If you want to revise Design 2 feel free. A further review of the details of summaries provided already in several places and how to deal new emergent issues due to edits to the old main page will be hopefully a task that a custodian or other volunteer who posts Design 2 will take on, whenever. Personally, I believe Design 2 is ready to post and be adjusted by the community. It is past time for that. Reswik 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just talking about the main page. Lot of other stuff has been done, improved, etc, but the main page, the most visable page, is pretty much the same as it was a month ago. Is there anything I can do to help out with the redesign? Have you considered the three click rule?--Rayc 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've implemented the main page as set out on Main Page Design 2. I've also refactored it a bit so individual parts can be edited by users without custodian privileges. Should this not work, the subpages can be protected as needed. -- sebmol ? 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

project page picture

why were Image:South African classroom.jpg chose. Is wiki international? I mean that it which explain all people should be choose.

It was changed from a bunch of dead white guys. It's an exact opposite picture and a stop gap until we get a random picture function or a logo to put their.--Rayc 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Engineering PORTAL

the engineering link on the main page needs to go to Portal:Engineering and Technology, not School:Engineering

Changed it. Now the comSci people will have a 3 click path to there page from main. --Rayc 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is ok, since before it was a 5 click path because you kept getting redirected to the wrong place. Damien Black 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

the engineering link was changed back to School:Engineering... why is it the only school there and why isn't it pointing to Portal:Engineering and Technology? Damien Black 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, It might of been because of the main page switch over, though if not, there probably is a good reason for it. Math also has a school on the main page.--Rayc 03:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page picture

This new picture on the Main Page is certainly looking better than the previous one, and it associates on school and learning more efficiently, but its big problem is that there are no people in it at all. And since this aspect is very important, if I had to choose between them, I'd choose the old happy corridor instead of this sad abandoned lonely classroom. The old picture reflects the Wikiversity's openness and community way better than this looking-good, but wrong-message-sending one. --George D. Bozovic talk 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the pictures are changing daily. Good idea! --George D. Bozovic talk 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Page: New Design

Nice design. Congratulations to the designers. User:205.189.97.202/Sig

Yes, thank you very much to Trevor MacInnis and David Levy for their talented and extensive work in creating and refining the new main page design. Thank you also to everyone who shared input and comments. :) --Reswik 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto for Wikipedia?

"Help create a motto and a slogan for Wikipedia." It should be Wikiversity, shouldn't it? –Dilaudid 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I've changed it. How embarrassing...-- sebmol ? 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes me laugh. <chuckle> 205.189.97.202 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.niidae.com/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_talk:Main_Page&oldid=5354"